From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27738 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2011 04:14:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 27253 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Feb 2011 04:14:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:13:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 10237 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2011 04:13:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.101?) (yao@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 24 Feb 2011 04:13:54 -0000 Message-ID: <4D65DAFF.9050603@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:32:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Move common macros to i386-common.h References: <4D57AB12.1050708@codesourcery.com> <4D649A89.6040909@codesourcery.com> <201102232117.p1NLHdhA015543@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <201102232117.p1NLHdhA015543@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00672.txt.bz2 On 02/24/2011 05:17 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote: > I'm particularly worried about changes I'll make myself. My primary > development platform is OpenBSD which isn't supported by gdbserver. > So I won't be building the gdbserver code, so I won't notice any > problems my diffs (and other people's diffs) will introduce in > gdbserver. > Everyone here can only test his/her diff on a limited number of combination of arch and os. If diff breaks gdb or gdbserver, it should be fixed. > Sharing architecture-specific #define's is probably fine. Sharing > some simple basec support functions may also be ok. But I don't think > sharing more complicated code (such as the code manipulating the i386 > debug registers) is a good idea. To my patch, it is like an equivalent transformation. Code moved in gdb and gdbserver are exactly 100% same. AFAICS, i386 debug register manipulation code is the same on gdb and gdbserver. Why do you think it is not a good idea to move them? Am I missing something? -- Yao (齐尧)